×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

G5 Benchmark Roundup

pudge posted more than 10 years ago | from the in-case-you-are-not-sick-of-all-this-yet dept.

Technology (Apple) 251

"The G5 is the fastest PC in the world." "Yes, it is." "No, it's not!" Whatever. Read on for more on the subject, if you really want to.Matt Johnson writes "Well it looks like we finally have our first comparison of G5 vs. AMD Opteron, completed by none other than Charlie White, the individual which gained much oh his fame by publishing misleading benchmarks to make Apple's Final Cut Pro Software look like a bad performer. Mr. White's latest comparison shows the Opteron operating roughly 50% faster but what he doesn't say is which compiler was used to generate those SPEC scores. When Apple declared its benchmarks I feared that whoever made the first comparison would likely make this mistake. It seems only appropriate that Charlie White would be first."

An anonymous reader writes "In an ironic twist to the recent benchmark wars, Intel referred the Mac site MacFixIt to an analyst at Gartner Group who actually backed the PowerPC G5 platform with this assertion: 'These models certainly equal Intel's advanced 875 platform and should allow Apple to go until 2005 without a major platform refresh.'"

Another anonymous user writes, "While browsing the Xbench benchmark comparison site, I discovered some G5 benchmarks! The 'G5 Lab Machine at WWDC' got an overall score of 164.78, but much higher scores in certain areas. All of the tests are calibrated to give 100 on an 800MHz DP Quicksilver G4."

vitaboy writes "Sound Technology, one of the "leading UK distributors specialising in musical instruments, music software and pro-audio equipment," seems to have some data regarding the real-world performance of the G5 compared to the high-end PC. They state, 'The dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 with Logic Platinum 6.1 can play 115 tracks, compared with a maximum of 35 tracks on the Dell Dimension 8300 and 81 tracks on the Dell Precision 650 each with Cubase SX 1.051 ... More impressively, the 1.6GHz single-processor Power Mac G5 played 50 percent more tracks than the 3GHz Pentium 4-based system.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

251 comments

six of one half a dozen of the other (1)

snuffdiddy23 (620624) | more than 10 years ago | (#6319290)

i have read about the g5's speed too many times this week. everything i am seeing is saying that it is faster for integers, but nothing else necessarily. i am also read on the haxial article link through /. earlier that integers were important and the SPEC results were not considering those, and as a coder that was important. i guess the only way to find out would be for me to buy one, which i probably will. if it is a total bust i am sure if nothing else i will not have to worry about choppy porno clips.
life could not be good enough to me that i would get first post, even if it is not on the main page, say it ain't so.

Re:six of one half a dozen of the other (4, Informative)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 10 years ago | (#6319347)

Sir,

if you had read anything in the last week you would know that the only area the G5 is slow in is integeres. It dominates on floats. it's basically a tie on integers: in Single processor mode it loses by perhaps 10% on the SPEC tests and in Dual processor mode it beats the Dual xeons by a margin of maybe 20%.

Can't find SPEC results at spec.org for Apple?? (1, Insightful)

Bob Bitchen (147646) | more than 10 years ago | (#6319293)

Why aren't there any SPEC [spec.org] numbers from Apple submitted to SPEC? Usually this means that a company knows they will show poor results. And I suppose in Apple's case they aren't reliant upon fast CPUs since they have those sexy designs and OS X now. But to win converts from the x86 camp they really should have some results submitted soon.

Re:Can't find SPEC results at spec.org for Apple?? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6319370)

Probably because we're still talking about prerelease hardware. The Veritest results are reliable, but they're not necessarily going to be perfectly representative of what you'll see in production hardware running the final build of 10.2.7.

Apple will submit figures to SPEC when they've got final hardware and software.

Re:Can't find SPEC results at spec.org for Apple?? (2, Informative)

develop (88564) | more than 10 years ago | (#6319376)

use this link to spec [spec.org] as the above one doesn't work all to well in all browsers. [missing the "www." some browsers add this if it's missing - others don't]

Re:Can't find SPEC results at spec.org for Apple?? (1)

Japer Lamar Crabb (670674) | more than 10 years ago | (#6320351)

>>[missing the "www." some browsers add this if it's missing - others don't]

Christ, had you pressed one key three times and another once you could've saved yourself and the rest of us this lame attempt at +5 Funny.

Re:Can't find SPEC results at spec.org for Apple?? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6319770)

Because the first thing my Mom does when she buys a new computer is to run over to the SPEC website and check their numbers.

Re:Can't find SPEC results at spec.org for Apple?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6322178)

No, the first thing Mom does is sees the SPEC results on Apple's website and goes "wow, these new machines really are fast!" - and Apple make a sale. You and I, however, run over to the SPEC website, discover the reality of the situation (Apple don't even have any official SPEC figures) and buy a cluster of x86 systems. Apple lose 100 sales.

I wonder if we'll see Powermac G5 clusters in the top500 list. My bet is that we won't.

Re:Can't find SPEC results at spec.org for Apple?? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6319963)

Because then they couldn't dumb down the other PC's SPEC scores and make them look worse - they'd be up there compared to the best PC performers, and the macs would finally be decent performers, but still slower across the board. Same reason there were never any G4 scores up there.

Duh. ;)

Moderation: -1, true (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6321451)

OMG! Can't point out when Apple's lying about stuff! That's bad, and must be moderated down so that people can't see it!

No Appropriate Fortran compiler (2, Informative)

SirDrinksAlot (226001) | more than 10 years ago | (#6321905)

There isnt an appropriate fortran compiler to properly compile SPEC in OSX. The current version is out of date and apple has to use a Fortran to C converter inorder to build them.

This is possibly why they havent submitted any benchmarks.

Granted the compiler should make everything look the same in the end but this is just a theory.

Re:No Appropriate Fortran compiler (5, Informative)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 10 years ago | (#6322179)

Why don't you read the benchmarks before speculating? Some of the benchmarks are written in Fortran 90. Neither f2c nor g77 (available from fink) support this code, so Apple used NAG Fortran f95 v4.2 [nag.com]

Yes, there is a GNU Fortran95 compiler [sourceforge.net], but it's "in a pupal state."

It's important to know... (5, Interesting)

NickV (30252) | more than 10 years ago | (#6319294)

That Charlie White gets off on doing nothing more than trashing the Mac and he often makes tons of things up...

A real good point, and one to points to the fact that Charlie White stats are COMPLETELY cooked up and fake, is that apparently AMD benchmarked against a SINGLE G5 2Ghz Powermac...

Hmm... Where did the Single 2ghz G5 Powermac come from? We know Apple doesn't make them...

If you're gonna lie, at least do it right. Sigh.

(And another thing, AMD has more credibility than Apple regarding self-reported benchmark scores? There is no reason for that other than bias.)

Re:It's important to know... (5, Interesting)

GreenHell (209242) | more than 10 years ago | (#6319461)

Actually, if you look at Apple's G5 Performance page [apple.com] you'll see that those are the numbers for the dual 2GHz G5.

Given that, I'm still inclined to take the comparison with an entire shaker of salt. I mean, if he's suspiscious of Apple's numbers but not suspiscious of numbers obtained from another processor manufacturer than I don't know what to say other than 'Mr. White, your bias is showing.'

I'm waiting until they hit the market so that the comparisons are done by people who actually got to test the machines themselves, not some guy who knew what he wanted the data to say before he even began writing. Until then, all I'll say is that it looks like nice hardware. But faster or better? Who knows.

Re:It's important to know... (4, Insightful)

saden1 (581102) | more than 10 years ago | (#6319602)

Never trust a company that is trying to sell you something. The test should have been done by him rather than being provided by the companies themselves. This guy has zero credibility and I for one don't put much stock on what he says.

Oh, and that last line about AMD having more credibility is just one of the most stupidest things I have ever heard. I don't buy Macs because of the $$$ and I pack a AMD chip but to say something like AMD has more credibility is very silly.

It is good to see that the old adage of "like assholes, everyone has an opinion" hold true.

Re:It's important to know... (5, Insightful)

CompVisGuy (587118) | more than 10 years ago | (#6321158)

I think that the $$$ argument is flawed -- it's a myth.

If you compare the price of a G5 (or pretty much any Apple system), with an equivalently-specced PC from a reputable supplier (such as Dell) -- if you can in fact find an equivalent (and frequently you can't, Apple now out-perform PCs, and often you get standard features on an Apple that you can't get on a PC) -- then you will find the Dell system to be more expensive than the Apple.

Granted, you will probably be able to build your own system, or buy from a local PC shop, a PC with a decent spec that is cheaper than an Apple system. However, I have had a couple of very bad experiences with small/mid-size PC builders, and a horrible experience building my own system (I'm a qualified electronics engineer, but I was let down by some dodgy components and very poor aftersales service). Others may have better experiences, but I think it's a matter of luck over judgement. So, ever since, I've vowed to only buy from the big boys.

Next we come to software. On an Apple system, OS X is included in the price of the system -- you often have to pay extra on the PC system for Windows (OK, Linux etc. are often cost-free if you want to go that route). Sometimes Apple software is more expensive or unavailable on the Mac -- but in my line of work (statistical modelling), all the software I need is available. For Word document monkeys, you also have MS Office on the Mac (I'm told it's better than the PC version). Games are slower to appear on the Mac -- that's a potential drawback.

I spend almost every working day in front of a computer. If you had to drive around for a living, you'd want a decent vehicle: any extra cost of an Apple system over a PC system, amortised over the time spent using the system, is almost zero. Oftentimes, the Apple system is cheaper anyway.

But here's the real reason to buy a Mac: The integration between the hardware (some of the best-engineered in the industry) and the OS (OS X is probably the best OS around at the moment). "It just works" is something I hear from people who make the 'switch' from PC to Mac, and it's true.

That's my opinion. Maybe I'm an asshole, though.

Re:It's important to know... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6321284)

The idea that Macs are more expensive is false at the high end of the product line and true at the low end.

But here's the thing. Apple doesn't make a low-end computer. They just don't. So comparing a $1200 iMac to a $600 Dell is apples-to-oranges.

Re:It's important to know... (1)

MrTangent (652704) | more than 10 years ago | (#6322847)

What about the $800 eMac? Just wait when the tech industry comes out of the slump and PC prices go back up. I think the entire PC industry is selling so cheap because of the major slump we're in. Just two years ago you'd pay well over $1000 for the same PC systems they're selling for $600 or so now. And when the industry/economy pick back up, expect the computer prices to go back to previous, $1000+ levels. And when this happens, Apple will be much more price competitive. I still believe that Apple is very price competitive, considering the quality of the product you're buying and when you compare equally specced out PC's. The iBook, for example, is very competitively priced when compared to equally specced PC laptops.

Re:It's important to know... (1, Informative)

DrStrangeLoop (567076) | more than 10 years ago | (#6319658)

Hmm... Where did the Single 2ghz G5 Powermac come from? We know Apple doesn't make them...

AFAIK, it is possible to switch off one of the two 2 GHz processors for benchmarking.

--strangeloop

Re:It's important to know... (1, Interesting)

Zeio (325157) | more than 10 years ago | (#6321208)

The SPEC marks use only one CPU for SPEC_int and SPEC_fp.

Why doesn't Apple publish their marks on specbench.org? Why don't people look at
this:
http://www.specbench.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q2 /cpu2000-20030421-02108.html [specbench.org]

or

this: [specbench.org]
http://www.specbench.org/cpu2000/results/res2003 q2 /cpu2000-20030421-02109.html

The compiler?
Compiler: Intel C/C++ 7.0 build 20021212Z and
Intel Fortran 7.0 build 20021212Z,
Compaq Visual Fortran Compiler Version 6.6
Update B, Microsoft Visual Studio .NET (libraries)7.0.9466,
MicroQuill Smartheap Library 6.0

A few samples of the tweaks used to get peak?
C +FD0 -O3 -QxW -Qipo ;
C++ +FD0 -Qipo -GX -GR ;
Fortran +FD0 -O3 -QaxK -Qipo -Oi-

Apple should be forced to do full disclosure and publish results. I think SPEC should forbid the quoting of unpublished SPEC marks.

I think people need to better understand these benchmarks before commenting on them.

I personally consider the peak scored for INT and FP because the OS, the compilers, the compiler flags and libraries used are generally "real" and good for multipurpose general use -not the case in a certain Apple benchmark where a library was used that would be useless on a production system quote from an Extreme Tech article [extremetech.com]
" Installed a high performance, single threaded malloc library. This library implementation is geared for speed rather than memory efficiency and is single-threaded which makes it unsuitable for many uses. Special provisions are made for very small allocations (less than 4 bytes). This library is accessed through use of the -lstmalloc flag during program".
What I find the most interesting thing to come of this whole mess is the fact than the Opteron produced some scores which challenge the Itanium 2 on Intel's own compiler.

Re:It's important to know... (2, Informative)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 10 years ago | (#6321675)

Apple did publish full disclosure information on the VeriTest site. Since it often takes SPEC a while to post results that have been submitted to them, we don't really know whether Apple submitted their results to SPEC or not.

Useless article (5, Insightful)

cioxx (456323) | more than 10 years ago | (#6319333)

First benchmarks? This is a joke. He didn't even get to test any of the G5's, nor bench'd them.
DMN has obtained SPEC benchmark data from AMD

Right! He obtained them.

It's a biased opinion piece. Now I'm aware that Apple kick-started the G5 with lots of smoke, which is the nature of the business in the computer hardware world, but to discount these numbers just because of some hype during WWDC presentation is silly.

How about we wait for the REAL benchmars from Anandtech and put away some speculation from webmasters who can't even hire anyone older than 14y/olds to design their websites?

Re:Useless article (2, Interesting)

diverman (55324) | more than 10 years ago | (#6319626)

I agree. Wait for the REAL benchmarks.

One thing I have to say about Apple's spin on benchmarks... Has Apple Marketing finally figured out how the rest of the companies play the game??? If so, Apple might stand a chance afterall!!!

-Alex

Re:Useless article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6319753)

Common dont be a lemming. Go to spec.org like he did and look up the numbers for yourself and compare the specs.

From this alone Apple can not use those claims in there marketing. They are not the first 64bit and the fastest is questionable.

Re:Useless article (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6320686)

You'll notice, if you weren't a lemming yourself, that there are G5 benchmarks provided by IBM that do extremely well against the Opteron and P4. Oh, and by the way, these same results that are provided by IBM are significantly better than the results Apple is using. Just goes to show you how much SPEC relies on compiler. The important thing is the G5 is competitive and so close it probably doesn't matter too much. Doesn't every company claim to have the fastest CPU out? Come one now, repeat after me... MARKETING.

Apple states they are the first 64-bit desktop. Yeah it's marketing and it relies heavily on the definition of a desktop, but I tend to agree with Apple. Why do I agree that Apple has the first 64-bit desktop? Because any 64-bit machine that was released before the G5 had to be ordered from a manufacturer of workstations or built using parts intended and marketed for workstations. If I had billions of dollars and I buy a an ASCII White to use at home, does that mean ACSII white becomes the fastest desktop ever?

Yeah, a consumer could always buy a 64-bit machine, but it's not marketed toward them and is more difficult to obtain. There was no mass market/consumer availability. Can you go into your local CompUSA or Best Buy and get a 64-bit computer? No. Can you order a 64-bit computer from the Home & Home Office section of Dell? No. You will, however, be able to walk into an Apple Retail store or CompUSA and buy a 64-bit G5 once they start shipping in Aug/Sept. I do believe you will. In fact, you can buy one right now, except you won't get it for a month or two.

So yes, Apple may very well have the first 64-bit desktop... as long as Dell Home doesn't begin selling a 64-bit machine before September.

Re:Useless article (4, Informative)

MalleusEBHC (597600) | more than 10 years ago | (#6320848)

Apple states they are the first 64-bit desktop.

Actually, Apple never has said that it is the first 64-bit desktop, as they know that they would be wrong due to previous 64-bit workstations. They have repeatedly said that it is the first 64-bit personal computer, as shown on their PowerMac [apple.com] page.

Re:Useless article (1)

WatertonMan (550706) | more than 10 years ago | (#6322849)

There are strong rumors being reported at the standard Mac rumor sites that IBM is porting their Visual Age compilers, including their Fortran compiler. This can only be good news since the one place Apple continues to trail the Windows platform is in compilers/IDEs. Both Project Builder and Codewarrior are behind the curve compared to Visual Studio.

Yes I know about XCode. But thus far I've not seen that XCode solves the serious problems in debugging C++ code in Project Builder. I'm hopeful it does and that the gcc compiler gets more optimizations in it between now and September. But I'm not counting on it. And yes I know there is a new Codewarrior rumored to be out in September. But given the general malaise that is Motorola, I'm not sure it will surpass XCode or even play catchup with Microsoft. (Which is very sad - Codewarrior was very cutting edge back when it was released)

Re:Useless article (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6320774)

Anandtech? Seriously, there are very few relatively unbiased sites out there and Anandtech ain't one of them. Ars Technica is probably the most unbiased there is, and that's where I'll be looking. As for Anandtech, if they post a review of the G5, I'll read it, but I've seen too many Apple-bashing comments in previous stories and reviews to consider them an unbiased source.

not even shipping yet... (4, Insightful)

boomerny (670029) | more than 10 years ago | (#6319362)

I'll wait til the systems are actually shipping and I've seen some independent real-world benchmarks before making any judgements. Xlr8yourmac.com should have some good information once they ship, and maybe barefeats.com

Re:not even shipping yet... (1)

batobin (10158) | more than 10 years ago | (#6322758)

Barefeats is awesome, and the guy isn't afraid to publish results that hurt Apple.

Not Only Deadlier... (-1, Troll)

webhead74 (675983) | more than 10 years ago | (#6319369)

but smarter too. Seriously, though... who cares how fast they are? You can't easily build one yourself, so why bother?

Re:Not Only Deadlier... (0)

webhead74 (675983) | more than 10 years ago | (#6320625)

Why was this modded as a "troll"?? It's true, isn't it? On my desk, I have a Centris 610, which I've had for nearly 10 years. I also have a G3 Lombard, which I love to death. I'm *not* an Apple hater... but, IMO, for desktop systems, if you can't build it yourself why bother? I can build a comparable PC based system for far less money than what these things will be going for.

Re:Not Only Deadlier... (4, Funny)

presearch (214913) | more than 10 years ago | (#6320849)

if you can't build it yourself why bother?

I feel the same way about cars, major home appliances, and especially consumer electronics.
Does anyone else smell wire burning?

I gotta go....

Re:Not Only Deadlier... (3, Insightful)

MalleusEBHC (597600) | more than 10 years ago | (#6320862)

I can build a comparable PC based system for far less money than what these things will be going for.

Comparable is in the eye of the beholder. I, like many other Mac users I know, wouldn't trade an OS X box for a Windows or Linux machine no matter how much faster it is. To me, paying the extra money for an Apple machine is worth it as it allows me to use the OS where I can be most productive. It doesn't matter how fast your processor is if you don't like working on your machine.

Re:Not Only Deadlier... (0)

webhead74 (675983) | more than 10 years ago | (#6320950)

wouldn't trade an OS X box for a Windows or Linux machine

Well, now - that's the problem isn't it? Maybe someday we won't have to. I've yet to get Darwin installed on any of my x86 boxes, but IMO Apple would be wise to throw some more weight behind porting OSX to x86. I'd use it in a heartbeat (currently running it on my Lombard)... however, some of us are poor and there's no way I could justify paying that much money for a machine when I could build something comparable (x86) for *far* less money. YMMV.

Re:Not Only Deadlier... (1)

Alan Partridge (516639) | more than 10 years ago | (#6322137)

if you really want Apple to develop something for you, don't tell them how poor you are first.

It kind of acts as a disincentive for these corporate types...

benchmarks; can't live with or without them... (4, Insightful)

flaroche76 (642126) | more than 10 years ago | (#6319387)

People obviously shouldn't form an opinion on a new platform in the first week following its much hyped anouncement. I think the only thing this first week proves is that at least Apple was able to put itself back on the map and be worthy of performance comparison with high-end systems. Or else, why would these PC-centric doofus post early benchmarks and make asses out of themselves if not to try to defuse an apparent threat? What I want are options. I think Apple just gave me another one. But I won't base my judgement on the number of times Steve Jobs says the word 'awesome' in a keynote address or on shady benchmarks done on an apparently non-existing model (single 2ghz cpu)... I think people should let their emotions settle down and wait to get their hands on a real machine and try it out themselves...

Re:benchmarks; can't live with or without them... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6319427)

People obviously shouldn't form an opinion on a new platform in the first week following its much hyped anouncement.

Of course they should. That opinion is perfectly valid. And it is, "Wow. Those are going to be really fast. They look cool. I'm excited."

Or else, why would these PC-centric doofus post early benchmarks and make asses out of themselves if not to try to defuse an apparent threat?

In my experience, PC doofuses have always been big with the benchmarks. It's like a bragging right to them. "I tweaked my dual Smockron 4500 and got it up to 313.3 on SPECdickweed_base!"

Meanwhile, us Mac doofuses (and I use the term with the greatest affection) spend that same time actually working. Because we need the extra cash to feed our $4000-a-year Mac habit.

What I want are options.

Oh, come on now. No you don't. What you really want is a computer that satisfies all of whatever your personal criteria for goodness are. If there were only one computer in the world but it were perfect, you'd be happy.

The whole "what we really want is choice" thing just ain't so.

Re:benchmarks; can't live with or without them... (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 10 years ago | (#6319567)

In my experience, PC doofuses have always been big with the benchmarks. It's like a bragging right to them. "I tweaked my dual Smockron 4500 and got it up to 313.3 on SPECdickweed_base!"

Meanwhile, us Mac doofuses (and I use the term with the greatest affection) spend that same time actually working. Because we need the extra cash to feed our $4000-a-year Mac habit.


Sure, certain models of x86 boxen costs less than macs, but the benchmarks cost $500. [spec.org]. I mean validation might well be worth something to the insecure, but is it really worth spending 20% of your budget on a benchmark suite? Remember, spec results are only valid for a machine of identical specification.

I need a G5 to keep track of all the claims (5, Interesting)

GurgleJerk (568712) | more than 10 years ago | (#6319409)

Looking at everything I've seen so far, it looks like the G5 at 2.0 GHz is comparable to a current Xeon or P4 on raw speed. Maybe it lags a little bit in some areas, and in a few areas it can beat the Xeon or P4. But I think we've gotten a little too anal about the processor specs. If I'm not mistaken, Apple didn't claim "World's Fastest Processor." they claimed "World's Fastest Personal Computer."

At 2.0 GHz, the G5 is on par with the current top processors, but what I think people need to look at is that the 1GHz bus is a monster. It allows data transfer rates that smoke other desktop systems. This is where Apple picks up a lot of speed, especially with disk-hungry programs like Photoshop. So the total system is significantly faster than the PC in terms of that kind of real-world performance.

And there are two more things that give the G5 an advantage: price and GHz. If the claim of twelve months to 3.0GHz is true, then at 3.0GHz the G5 will be exponentially faster than a 3.5 or 3.6 GHz P4. I don't know precisely how fast the Intel chips will be in 12 months, but a whole GHz? Unlikely.

Lastly, price is a fantastic advantage for the G5 systems. At $3000 you can buy the fastest Mac and a machine that can run certain apps twice as fast as PC systems. And it's cheaper than these top-of-the-line PCs by more than $1000. The G5 is simply the fastest, cheapest system with the most potential in the future to get even faster. When looked at in total, there really isn't a lot of debate on those points.

Re:I need a G5 to keep track of all the claims (5, Interesting)

FueledByRamen (581784) | more than 10 years ago | (#6319792)

This is where Apple picks up a lot of speed, especially with disk-hungry programs like Photoshop.
That probably should read "memory-hungry." Disk transfers are still really, really slow - although SATA (which is used in the G5) can go at 150 megs/sec, so can full-duplex Gigabit Ethernet (also included). The real performance ass-kicker is the memory bus - they use 128-bit DDR400, and I'm assuming it can be interleaved (since you're probably going to put multiple sticks in it anyway) for even better performance. They get 6.4GB/sec (gigabytes) out of it (stated at the Stevenote), which is pretty damn good. Not quite enough to saturate the processors' FSBs, but if you need to move a lot of stuff to/from RAM, PCI/X slots (optional), AGP, and the I/O controller (sound, ethernet, etc), like in any game, any high-end 3d app, or any audio app that includes an effects processor (especially when running it on a real-time audio input, recording, while also outputting the results, at 96khz 48000/stereo), the G5 will dominate.

Re:I need a G5 to keep track of all the claims (1)

Dylan Zimmerman (607218) | more than 10 years ago | (#6320407)

Here's something odd that I noticed about Apple's new systems. You can only get the RAM is pairs of the same value. I wonder if this is just an artificial restriction in Apple's online store or if it's some hardware trick that they used to keep the G5 fed. I'm betting on the latter.

Re:I need a G5 to keep track of all the claims (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6320455)

The dimms used are standard 64bit parts, so you need a matched pair for 128-bit access. muchlike an i875 chipset needs dimms to be added as identical pairs.

Easy to get something faster, cheaper than G5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6321662)

It did not take long to find something faster and cheaper than this 2.0 ghz G5 at $3000, such as a Dell with a 2.4 mhz processor for under $2000.

The PCs are always cheaper and faster; that has not changed yet.

Re:Easy to get something faster, cheaper than G5 (1)

xenocytekron (586678) | more than 10 years ago | (#6322111)

OOH! 2.4 mhz Dell for under $2000! this is excellent! faster than a 2 ghz 64 bit processor though, i doubt it.

I think you missed the clue train. (4, Informative)

phillymjs (234426) | more than 10 years ago | (#6322171)

The machine that a dual 2GHz G5 trounced in all the real-world app tests was a Dell with dual 3.06GHz Xeons. Notice, I said "real-world app tests," not the questionable benchmarks. You can dispute the benchmarks, but it's hard to argue the performance differences I saw with Photoshop, Mathematica, etc. The Dell was flat-out dusted.

If a dual 3.06GHz Xeon system was shown to be slower than the dual 2.0GHz G5, please explain how a Dell with only dual 2.4GHz Xeons (which is what I presume you meant) is faster.

The Dell dual 3.06GHz Xeon system has been repeatedly spec'd out in recent /. discussions at ~$4000 in configurations comparable to the G5's. I just did it myself. I configured my Dell PWS 450 by selecting two 3.06GHz Xeons, downgrading to 512MB of RAM, upgrading to a 120GB hard drive (still smaller than the G5's 160MB), upgrading to the cheapest drive that could write DVDs, adding a modem, adding a FireWire card, and subtracting a monitor. Components not specifically listed here were left at their default settings. Final price: $3772.

Since the bone-stock G5 is $3000, please explain how the dual Xeon costing $3772 is cheaper.

BTW, the exact Dell system above configured with 2.4GHz dual Xeons is $2522, not "under $2000" as you seem to have claimed.

~Philly

real world apps (5, Interesting)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 10 years ago | (#6319458)

The keynote address was fairly long so I would guess most slashdot readers actually watched all of it. In it they did on stage examples of tests they did with real world apps.

They showed four top-shelf apps: Photoshop, Mathematica, Emagic, and one other I'm spacing on. In each case the apps were not demoed by mac but rather by someone from the app company. And the examples they gave were clearly practical ones not special cases noone would actually want to do. In the case of Photoshop it was actually a commerical product (movie poster) that was recreated by replaying the artists commands. In the case of the Emagic it was the compositing of the actual musical composition that the musician had done. In the case of mathematical it was the calcualtion of a fractal curve: theodore grey pointed out they had to dumb down the calculations so they xeon would not run out of memory.

in all cases the Apple ran more than 2X faster than the Xeon.

now you could try to say these were tweaked apps, but that wont wash. these are pro-sumer apps that these comanies sell for a living. you better believe that would optimize the heck out of both the wintel and Apple versions. Certianly, if there was any tewaking tobe done they had lots of time and no shortage of manpower and experts to do it on the intel instruction set. Another test they did not demo live was the 40% higher frame rate in Quake

If all they had shown was some single case like photshop or Quake I might have been less convinced. but here are five different genres of applications, in the most demanding fields of Imagery, music, (real world) numerical math, Gaming and others. Okay so your application--say MS word or web browsing--isn't so demanding. That's not the pointis it: you aren't doing things where the machine is the speed limit.

I think its pretty reasonable to assume that over time compilers for the new G5 will imporve more that those for the i86 instruction set since there's new things to exploit. Likewise relatively few compilers do a good job of taking fulladvantage of the Altivec extensions yet. And with the fat, independent pipes to disk, and memory apps will need to be re-written since many of the old bottlenecks they were designed to avoid aren't there anymore

So argue all you want about SPEC tests, but were taking shaving ten or 20 minutes per hour of real world usages. Its phenomenal. In my opinion the diveristy of tests clearly shows the mac is not only the fasest currently on-sale platform, but that there is not even any wiggle room to doubt that.

maybe (5, Interesting)

jbolden (176878) | more than 10 years ago | (#6319614)

I think its pretty reasonable to assume that over time compilers for the new G5 will imporve more that those for the i86 instruction set since there's new things to exploit.

Actually from an optomization standpoint x86 is pretty new too. What you need to do for Pentium IV (pre HyperThreading) is very different than what is needed for Pentium III and different from what is needed for PIV w/ HT. Further the complexity is so great that compiler science of today is really not up to the task.

Conversely the G5 is much simplir problem due to better design. OTOH it also much newer. It may be that in practice (especially when people are willing to lose 32 bit and/or G3 compatability) you might get some truly wonderful improvement.

So I'm really not sure where there is more room for improvement over time. I just don't think its nearly as easy to say as you had it in the above. In my opinion its going to come down to a political choice regarding the G3s vs. advances in compiler technology.

Re:maybe (5, Insightful)

FueledByRamen (581784) | more than 10 years ago | (#6319819)

Losing 32-bit compatibility shouldn't be a problem at all. That's the great thing about the Mach-O Executable format (used by OS X) - you can stick binaries for as many different architectures as you want in there. Hell, if windows supported the format, you could stick an X86 and a PPC binary in there and run exactly the same file on both platforms. Ditto for Solaris, Linux, IBM's zOS - you get the point.

My guess is that Apple will make the 64-bit versions of the Mach-O binary loader look in a different place (I don't know how the Mach-O format is organized - the next slot? a different directory tree?) for a 64-bit native version, and fall back to the 32-bit version if one can't be found. The existing loaders will just keep looking in the same place they always have, and see the 32-bit version.

Re:real world apps (1)

adam872 (652411) | more than 10 years ago | (#6319783)

Agreed.

All benchmarks are only useful up to a point. What really counts is how they run *your* apps. The Intel platform does a good job for single threaded uniprocessor tasks, as evidenced by things like SPECINT and SPECFP. However, the story in other benchmarks might be quite different (e.g. SPECINTRATE, SPECFPRATE, TPC etc etc). What it gets down to is that each configuration, compiler, optimisation flags etc are different enough to make real comparisons difficult. The other thing about benchmarks is that they only give you an *indication* of expected performance, not what it will really be like. The above factors will greatly influence how your workloads will run in the real world...

If I'm running a database, I want something like an SMP UltraSPARC, Power4, Alpha or Itanium2, whereas computational fluid dynamics might lend itself to a cluster of IA-32 boxes or G4/5 with Altivec.

The point is, every system has its sweet spot and Apple most definitely has theirs. I'm just glad to see a) that they have a 64-bit system out there and b) they can compete toe to toe with Intel again. This can't be a bad thing for the industry.

Re:real world apps (2, Interesting)

chasingporsches (659844) | more than 10 years ago | (#6319905)

isn't it great to see a /. comment thread where the people aren't flaming each other or shunning someone? :-) i love it

but anyways... i completely agree. its not about numbers anymore. really, it hasn't been about numbers for the past 2 or 3 years once AMD Athlon XP became big. if all the little 12 year olds want to fight over decimals on benchmarks, let them. but when i saw the dual 2.0GHz G5 BLAZING past the dual 3.06GHz Xeon at WWDC, that was enough proof to me. they could show me all the numbers they wanted to, it wouldn't change anything. Cubasis crashed on the Xeon. Logic ran beautifully. Photoshop COMPLETELY blew the Xeon away, by a matter of minutes, while the G5 finished in, what, maybe a minute? And mathmatica... man, was that crazy. The G5 could have done the Logic, Photoshop, and Mathmatica tests in the time that it took the dual Xeon to do just the Mathmatica. so all you little script kiddies can b*tch at me all you want, but i know what i saw. and what i saw was the fastest desktop in the world. and many others did too, to back me up.

Apple owns Emagic! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6320316)

Just as a point of fact, Emagic is now a
part of Apple ... not an independent company.

Re:real world apps (4, Informative)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 10 years ago | (#6320368)

They showed four top-shelf apps: Photoshop, Mathematica, Emagic, and one other I'm spacing on. In each case the apps were not demoed by mac but rather by someone from the app company.

Emagic is the software company, not the program, and the fact that their Logic program one was demoed by Gerhard from Emagic rather than someone from 'mac' ( I think you meant Apple!) is a rather dubious disinction when you consider that Emagic is actually a subsidiary of Apple.

Having said that, my contacts in the pro-audio community are hugely impressed by the specs that were being thrown around. Apple's decision to but Emagic and discontinue development on the PC version of Logic was widely criticised, but I think the pay-off of having Logic optimised for G5 will win Apple a lot of sales.

Still stuck on benchmarks? (4, Insightful)

xyrw (609810) | more than 10 years ago | (#6319481)

I'm surprised that slashdot is still stuck on benchmarks as an indication of processor speed. Hasn't it already been pointed out over and again that it is incredibly difficult to compare across platforms?

I think it is best leave the pointless statistics to hardware fanatics, and use whatever platform makes one most productive. As such, if any benchmark is even minimally admissible, it is `real world' benchmarks. Yet they do not complete the picture, since productivity is a function of other things, such as user experience, planning required (for the type of job), ease of use-- the list goes on, but you get the idea.

After a point, increasing the number of FPS you get in Quake 3 is not going to make it any more fun for you; likewise, beyond a certain threshold, it becomes pointless trying to get those pro tools to run faster.

Re:Still stuck on benchmarks? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6319809)

Its not totally about benchmarking. Its with Apples creditability that their marketing is damaging.

They deserve to get roasted for this. How do you back up a company that are stating questionable and blatant lies.

Re:Still stuck on benchmarks? (4, Informative)

FueledByRamen (581784) | more than 10 years ago | (#6319840)

Actually, a higher FPS rating in Quake3-based games (I think the magic number is around 125) lets you jump higher and run a little faster. The key is that the engine physics are computed per frame, and something about the way they're written (maybe a rounding problem somewhere in there, don't ask me) allows for higher jumps and faster movement when you hit around 115 - 125 FPS.

Re:Still stuck on benchmarks? (1)

MalleusEBHC (597600) | more than 10 years ago | (#6320889)

Using Quake 3 for game performance benchmarking has its good points and bad points. For the good, it is widely accepted as a good platform neutral benchmark. Platform neutrality is one of the biggest problems in creating a good benchmark. The bad part is that Quake 3 is an old engine. At this point, it is irrelevant that the G5 can get 325 fps vs 275 (?) on a P4. What I want to see is whether or not the G5 has a noticeable advantage on newer games like UT2k3 where the difference between 50 and 100 fps is important.

Hopefully Doom 3 or UT2k3 will succeed Quake as the standard game benchmark, but until then we are left trying to apply Q3 numbers to our current gaming situation.

Re:Still stuck on benchmarks? (4, Interesting)

dbrutus (71639) | more than 10 years ago | (#6319952)

But past a certain framerate I can compile in background and still run Quake at an acceptable speed. Sure, it makes the compile slow down some but if you're going to take a 10 minute break, isn't it nice to be able to get some work done in the background at the same time?

real world apps?! (5, Interesting)

andrewleung (48567) | more than 10 years ago | (#6319529)

now, how come everyone is just focusing on SPEC benchmarks?! which compiler, what options were set, etc.?!

i saw the keynote, they had photoshop/mathmatica/etc. going on there... photoshop has been out on PC for a while... REALLY enhanced with MMX/SSE/SSE2... and it probably was using the intel compiler... but the G5 version was only a few months old, barely optimized, and using whatever tools apple gave them (probably GCC 3.3)... and the G5s still kicked a lot of ass.

benchmarks are important but it's not my job. if i can get shit done faster in photoshop with BSD guts, i'm all for it.

fuck the benches. welcome to the REAL world...

Benchmarking (3, Insightful)

Llywelyn (531070) | more than 10 years ago | (#6321545)

"The best benchmark is the app you want to use"

Wisest advice I've ever heard--it was in my machine org and assembly textbook.

*Any* cross-platform benchmark should be taken with a shaker full of salt--they simply do not represent real world performance.

SPEC, for all of its nice points, also falls into this same category. In the end, when all is said and done, people prefer to confuse the model with reality--they think that real world performance follows SPEC scores.

Re:Benchmarking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6322210)

Why wouldn't real world performance follow SPEC scores? Do you even know what the SPEC benchmarks _contain_? I suspect you don't.

XBench and Altivec (2, Informative)

norwoodites (226775) | more than 10 years ago | (#6319780)

The problem with the XBench and the Altivec test is that it uses some instructions (dst) that are very bad to use on the G5 look at these technotes about tuning your program for the G5:

The Altivec test uses the dst instruction every iteration through a loop so slows down the G5 (it might also slow down the G4 also).

Why not logic on both? (1)

metalhed77 (250273) | more than 10 years ago | (#6319964)

Logic is available for both Mac and Win. Why were the PCs using cubase instead? They are different pieces of software, what an unfair comparison.

Re:Why not logic on both? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6320166)

Emagic used the latest version of Logic (6.1) on the demo. The last version ever available of Logic for PC is 5.5.1. Therefore the chose to use Cubase SX, that's the closest competitor nowadays.

(I'm not an anonymous coward, just lazy, my real name is Martin Pettersson!)

Re:Why not logic on both? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6320184)

Logic on Win is horribly unoptimized - it doesn't even use SSE2 extensions. The PC did much better with Cubase than it would have with Logic. Cubase also has multiple pipeline support, which makes it even better.

Re:Why not logic on both? (1)

Hackie_Chan (678203) | more than 10 years ago | (#6320212)

Because Logic is now just like Final Cut Pro. It's a product slapped with the Apple-sticker on it. You don't see Apple comparing After Effects on the Mac with After Effects on the PC, right? Because eMagic now run closely with Apple they can utilize the Macs better than for example, Steinberg can do. I know, I see your point about unfairness.

Think of it more as an Apple, eMagic and IBM vs Microsoft, Steinberg and Intel fight.

Re:Why not logic on both? (1)

sribe (304414) | more than 10 years ago | (#6320631)

You don't see Apple comparing After Effects on the Mac with After Effects on the PC, right?

Click here [macintouch.com] to check out a comment from an After Effects user, showing the G5 leaving the Xeon in the dust! So your apparent hypothesis of "there exists a program which Apple did not publicly benchmark, therefore they must be hiding something" has now been disproven by contradiction--imagine that ;-)

Re:Why not logic on both? (2, Informative)

Pyrometer (106089) | more than 10 years ago | (#6320272)

Quite simply because Logic is no longer being developed for Windows (now that doesn't happen every day!). So to make the comparison "fair" they choose the next competing product. Simple as that really.

The above is based on the live feed done by iPalindrome @ arstechnica.com. The important bit is as follows:

[14:51] Qbase on windows vs. Logic on Mac
[14:51] Complex music piece created for the Matrix trailier
[14:51] Play the PC first then the Mac
[14:52] PC CPU is spiking aroujnd 85-90%
[14:52] Audio is skipping
[14:52] skipped again
[14:52] Used Qbase for the bakeoff because Logic isn't available for Windows anymore
[14:53] massive skipping and jumping ahead
[14:53] Music has stopped ast the CPU meter is at 100%
[14:53] On the Mac now
[14:53] CPU is >30%
[14:53] One CPU is at 50%, the other a [14:53] Music is playing smoothly
[14:54] SJ again

This is worse than political campaigning... (1, Informative)

exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | more than 10 years ago | (#6319972)

The dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 with Logic Platinum 6.1 can play 115 tracks, compared with a maximum of 35 tracks on the Dell Dimension 8300
Of course it does. Why would a division of Apple [com.com] choose not to hobble the PC version of one of their products?

There is no Logic 6.1 for Windows. (2, Informative)

forel (172516) | more than 10 years ago | (#6322581)

When Apple bought Emagic, they discontinued the Windows version. There was no "hobbled" version of Logic being compared. Apple has no version of Logic optimised for Windows to compare their version of of Logic on the G5 with - so they used Cubase SX.

Why didn't they use Cubase on the Mac?
Why would they? They want to show off their professional DAW and how it screams on the G5, not someone else's. You may say that it isn't fair, but I say that Cubase SX on the Mac is a big turd of code that needs flushing. I have no experience with the Windows version.

We need a new icon. (1, Offtopic)

odenshaw (471011) | more than 10 years ago | (#6320164)

Can we really be talking about the G5 when the icon is a G4?
Frankly I'm a little worried.

All kind of pointless... (5, Insightful)

Arkham (10779) | more than 10 years ago | (#6320206)

At this point, does it really matter if Intel, AMD, or Apple is the slightly faster computer?

They're all extremely fast and all run one or more UNIX-like Operating Systems (Linux or BSD or OSX). For the Slashdot crowd, Windows is an afterthought, but I'll mention it as well.

What a person decides to buy is not going to be based on speed anymore. All of the fastest current machines will blaze playing Quake 3 or UT2003.

People who buy Macs may enjoy the speed, but that's not why they buy them. They buy them because they're cool, the have a really nice, easy-to-use, elegant OS that allows them to be productive. Also, they can use the commercial applications (Photoshop, Office, Filemaker, etc) they need on a stable, reliable UNIX platform.

Linux/BSD users have a very different set of criteria. They're looking for cheap, super-secure, stable, configurable or some other particular criteria, but are not particularly concerned with the UI experience or with running commercial desktop applications.

Windows users are a different group too. They want to run their commercial and vertical applications. They are not looking at Linux or Mac because their apps are not there.

That's why there's not a lot of crossover right now between Mac and Intel/AMD. The audience is just different. Thanks to things like Lindows, there may be some Windows->Linux crossover, but this too is pretty small.

Re:All kind of pointless... (3, Insightful)

Hackie_Chan (678203) | more than 10 years ago | (#6320318)

At this point, does it really matter if Intel, AMD, or Apple is the slightly faster computer?

The simple answer is: YES! Speed does matter! You're argument remind me of what all of us Mac users used to say in these latest couple of years right before the G5 announcement. It felt like as if you had a real small penis and tried to defend with the good ol' saying that "It's not the size that matter. It's how you use it!". We were all going "Speed doesn't matter. My penis can surf the net, listen to music and read my email. Size is irrelevant."

This is true to a certain extent, but how is it for them who absolutely need to use a penis that is as big as possible to get their work done as fast as possible? They had to switch penis or buy really tiny ones - ones who couldn't live up to competition. We all knew deep down inside that sizes did eventually matter. And dismissing the problem didn't exactly make it less inevitably to be teased by our PC-penis colleagues.

So yes. It matters. If humanity would go "Speed doesn't matter." what would people of the likes of John Carmack do for a living? Work for the Nasa? Bah! Useless! Thanks to the technology speed improvements over the years we've been able to watch crystal sparkling quality movies on our computer screens, play pirated betas of Doom 3 and download porn faster.

I can't take it any longer.. (-1, Flamebait)

7-Vodka (195504) | more than 10 years ago | (#6320464)

Every post I have read so far is by someone who's obviously on crack.

I didn't know there were so many mac enthusiasts so completely mislead.
I too was salivating at the G5 stuff. I too was mislead by all the apple stuff on launch day. But geez. get a clue.

1: the on-stage demonstrations are meaningless
I've seen perpetual motion machines convincingly demonstrated on stage, surprise surprise they didn't work. I've seen david copperfield on stage to and it really looked like he was flying

2: It should be very clear by now that while apple didn't lie about their machine's spec scores, they totally fucked the other machines they used as comparisons.

I guess they figured it was easier to make other spec scores lower and not get caught then to inflate theirs. Oh well, that's apple for you. The one that really got to me was the quake3 score. Their 300 something fps is probably true, but the intel machine they say gets low 300's, actually gets high 400's.

What I don't get is why apple has to make statements like "worlds fastest PC" and "worlds first 64bit PC". I mean shit, it's actually neither. Why not just publish their benchmarks and let them stand on their own merit. After all, their machine is fast enough to please most people. Why do they have to 'conduct' their own intel benchmarks and compare?

If you're buying an apple, you're not doing it for price/performance or even just performance, you're doing it because you like OS10 and you like mac hardware.

Re:I can't take it any longer.. (1)

dmarcoot (96402) | more than 10 years ago | (#6320563)

and this is different than any other company smudging their own benchmarks?

as yo why they have to make statements to world fastest anything, its a new thing called marketing. People get paid by companies to do it. get over it and why be so sensitive to any of it in first place? geezus.

Re:I can't take it any longer.. (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6320796)

1: the on-stage demonstrations are meaningless
Nope. They are not conclusive, but unless you think apple was just playing trumped up movies, and somehow managed to get four different major software developers to somehow go along with it, I'd say we saw a pretty good indication of what we will see in some real world situations.

2: It should be very clear by now that while apple didn't lie about their machine's spec scores, they totally fucked the other machines they used as comparisons.
Again, nope. Apple hired an independant benchmarking firm to test their machines against some others and fully disclose the methods and results. This puts them two steps up on most every other company's benchmarks that I've seen. If you don't agree with the methodology of the benchmarking, fine, but merely the fact that you have that information on the Apple sponsored tests should tell you that Apple is playing aboveboard.

I have yet to see one person argue that the numbers on the Intel/AMD machines were cooked who has actually recreated those tests, rather than just copied other numbers from some other company's benchmark, with undisclosed testing methodology. Arguing that the benchmarks are too low because the PC in question had the sound on while running Quake strikes me as silly.

OK, that's enough troll food for now.

Re:I can't take it any longer.. (2, Insightful)

7-Vodka (195504) | more than 10 years ago | (#6322141)

Apple hired an independant benchmarking firm

No, they didn't. Independent would mean that they weren't getting paid by anyone who has anything to gain by the results one way or another. As it turns out, apple hired them and they're not independent at all. M$ hires 'independent' think tanks to issue reports and lobby the government all the time.

Re:I can't take it any longer.. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6322575)

Apple hired an independant benchmarking firm

No, they didn't. Independent would mean that they weren't getting paid by anyone who has anything to gain by the results one way or another. As it turns out, apple hired them and they're not independent at all. M$ hires 'independent' think tanks to issue reports and lobby the government all the time.


MS creates "independent" thinktanks whose only income comes from MS and pays them to find the results they want. Veritest is a company that specializes in benchmarks and has done testing for dozens of major companies (see here [veritest.com]).
The mythical oraganizations MS quotes usually only have one customer, MS. While it is true that Apple paid Veritest for their services, it's pretty hard to find someone who benchmarks for free and is willing to sign an NDA to keep quiet until the announcement. Veritest, at least, has a reputation to uphold as a fair, independant, tester.

Re:I can't take it any longer.. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6320847)

Apple did not cripple the other machines. Read the testing procedures, the reply from Apple, and the numerous comments about the issue. Apple provided the best results possible using GCC and it really all comes down to the compiler. Spec.org even supports this fact as they have commented on the controversy.

You'll notice on spec.org that there are G5 benchmarks provided by IBM that do extremely well against the Opteron and P4. Oh, and by the way, these same results that are provided by IBM are significantly better than the results Apple is using. Just goes to show you how much SPEC relies on compiler. The important thing is the G5 is competitive and so close it probably doesn't matter too much. Doesn't every company claim to have the fastest CPU out? Come one now, repeat after me. M..A..R..K..E..T..I..N..G.

As for the Quake benchmarks, there's not much documentation provided, but from what I understand, the results are consistent with that model Dell running a fresh install of Quake with no tweaks or optimizations. Still, I agree the numbers could be a lot higher and we'll have to wait until a G5 is released to get the real verdict.

Finally, Apple states they are the first 64-bit desktop. Yeah it's marketing and it relies heavily on the definition of a desktop, but I tend to agree with Apple. Why do I agree that Apple has the first 64-bit desktop? Because any 64-bit machine that was released before the G5 had to be ordered from a manufacturer of workstations or built using parts intended and marketed for workstations. If I had billions of dollars and I buy a an ASCII White to use at home, does that mean ACSII white becomes the fastest desktop ever?

Yeah, a consumer could always buy a 64-bit machine, but it's not marketed toward them and is more difficult to obtain. There was no mass market/consumer availability. Can you go into your local CompUSA or Best Buy and get a 64-bit computer? No. Can you order a 64-bit computer from the Home & Home Office section of Dell? No. You will, however, be able to walk into an Apple Retail store or CompUSA and buy a 64-bit G5 once they start shipping in Aug/Sept. In fact, you can buy one right now, except you won't get it for another month or two.

So yes, Apple may very well have the first 64-bit desktop... as long as Dell Home doesn't begin selling a 64-bit machine before September. They also conducted their own benchmarks because unlike the results provided by Apple, the results posted on spec.org are not well-documented and are usually inflated quite a bit.

Re:I can't take it any longer.. (0)

tvadakia (314991) | more than 10 years ago | (#6321219)

Maybe you don't get the whole use of "PC"... Personal Computer. It truley IS the first 64-bit Personal Computer in mass market. The first 64-bit Workstation or Server? No. But it is the first 64-bit Personal Computer. Maybe you should take a chill pill and figure out just Apple is presenting before you open you mouth. And Apple didn't run these benchmark tests themselves... thay had a 3rd party do it, Apple's just presenting the scores.

Re:I can't take it any longer.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6321580)

It is obvious from your post that you are not going to be willing to accept that the Mac might be faster. I think if Gates himself told you that it was true you would laugh and say.. "Nah!"

Re:I can't take it any longer.. (1)

7-Vodka (195504) | more than 10 years ago | (#6322129)

lol nice one.

Thanks but I don't belive anything billy G says either. I'm happy with my gentoo and debians of the world.

Editor Moron: The base SPEC marks: tsarkon reports (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6321074)

The base spec mark is very conservatively compiled, the peak is more of the all out see if you can "cheat" with the compiler. The official published results, something Apple hasn't done, very clearly discloses peak tweaks. And Opteron uses the FUCKING INTEL COMPILER to get its maximum SPEC mark. He got the fucking numbers from the published results at www.spec.org / www.specbench.org . Why don't you try reading the tests on specbench.org and ask yourself this. Why the fuck has Apple NEVER published results there? Huh? [specbench.org] Maybe you should look at this for a little clarity, asshole. [specbench.org] Or this, a blinding SPEC_fp score. [specbench.org]

Why are you stupid Mac zealots unable to accept that the G5 is a fucking farce and a lie, just as everything Apple has done in the way of performance since the days when the machines were truly more interesting the PC. Talk about riding your apron string on your dollar, zealots.

Why not talk about POWER 4+ or the upcoming POWER 5, accept that a piece of shit OS like OS X will never run on hardware of that power level, and move on with life. The best CPU for the buck and the best 4, 2 and 1 way systems will be Opteron for some time to come. You guys are like Intel pissing on the Opteron. Big marketing machines discrediting superior technology by pointing out corner cases and lying about benchmarks to look better.

FreeBSD or die - fo shizzle the nizzle biznatch fat sexless live in basement of parents jobless zealots.

Re:Editor Moron: The base SPEC marks: tsarkon repo (3, Informative)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 10 years ago | (#6321493)

The G5 results are
SPECfp_base2000: 840
SPECint_base2000: 800

SPECfp_rate_base2000: 15.7
SPECint_rate_base2000:17.2

All of these are documented in the Veritest report, which includes a complete breakdown of results.

As for the intel compiler, the fact that icc produces good code for AMD processors has been known for some time. For those of us who prefer to use free compilers, the gcc results are still of some interest.

Of course, to really compare "gcc performance" one might choose to subtract out the Fortran programs-- those were compiled by the non-free NagWare Fortran. Or you could choose to compare those propriatary results with scores published on SpecBench.
The F90 programs are galgel, facerec, lucas, and fma3d. The F77 programs are wupwise, swim, applu, mgrid, sixtrack, and apsi.

Let's massage the data into submission...

The thing you have to remember... (3, Informative)

OrangeHairMan (560161) | more than 10 years ago | (#6321431)

...is that these things don't have an optimized operating system yet. It's like running benchmarks of Photoshop on Windows ME on a dual Opteron or something.

Once 10.3 comes out, and once 64 bit apps get optimized, this system will kick even more butt...

Orange

G5 is not even a PC !!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6321548)

The very first sentence is misleading; it is like discussing whether or not FloJo was a fast-running man, or whether or not the Burger King Whopper is the best-tasting casserole.

The G5 is not a PC. Apple has never made PCs ever. If you don't believe me, get "PC Magazine" or go to the PC Mall website. Better yet, go to a computer store and spend a few thousand dollars on software marked "PC Compatible". If this G5 is a PC, it should work, right champ?

Unless, perhaps, someone is referring to the G5's speed when it is running software to emulate the operations of a PC.

no troll, good point! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6321684)

It is certainly not a troll to point out that the first sentence of this news item makes a whopping blunder of including this G5 in a class of objects it does not belong to. If the Apple G5 is a PC, then Linux is a flavor of Microsoft Windows.

Perspective - my 25MHz NeXTstation (5, Interesting)

garyebickford (222422) | more than 10 years ago | (#6322101)

It's not always the cycles, it's how they're spread around and how you use them.

I still have an original 25MHz NextStation. CPU is a Moto 68040, plus (Intel?) Digital Signal Processing (DSP) chip that does (most of?) the rendering for both the display and the laser printer.

Back in 1999 I compared this box in actual usability with a Mac Powerbook 5300, admittedly the slowest and lamest PPC Mac ever built.

I found that in general usage, opening windows, updating display, doing word processing, etc., the NeXT outran the PB 5300.

Compiling speed sucked big time. Stuff that took a few minutes on the PB5300 ran overnight on the NeXTstation. This demonstrated to me the advantage of having a display coprocessor.

The user interface was also better by far than the Mac that stage. I used several 3rd party enhancements, such as one that provided an infinite-size virtual window, so it's not a completely fair comparison. The NeXT also scame with a bunch of cool apps, like Mathematica, Webster's, Lotus Improv (completely unique approach to spreadsheets, so far unduplicated.)

Most impressive thing about the NextStation was the industrial design. It is still the most elegant design I have ever seen in a desktop computer. For example, the ribbon cables from the mainboard to the floppy and the disk are about 1.5 inches each - just a 90 degree curve, essentially. Those are the only wires inside the box!

I've still got the NeXT, though it's back in the original boxes. I'll probably sell it eventually. I've also got three Perq workstations from 1982-3, but I haven't benchmarked them.

It's worth noting that NextStep's complete object integration across all apps was cited as a major inspiration for Tim Berners-Lee's original proposal for the World Wide Web. In fact, I even have a running copy of that first version of TBL's code, called (surprisingly) "WWW".

benchmarks, stenchmarks (4, Insightful)

nuckin futs (574289) | more than 10 years ago | (#6322732)

Intel (and others) could dispute every benchmark out there, but no matter how fast a P4 or Xeon is, it has one major problem which prevents me from buying one...
It still can't run OS X.
And no...rumors about an Intel based Mac running OS X deep inside Apple HQ doesn't count.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...